| [2022] FWC 465 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd
Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd
(B2022/141)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd and Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd.
This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd and Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (the Respondents).
On 2 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondents did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
An order has been separately issued in PR738934.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR738933>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 465
- Case
- [2022] FWC 465
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the Applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Act to hold a ballot for protected action. Specifically, the Deputy President needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondents. The Applicant submitted that it had taken all necessary steps to bargain in good faith and was genuinely attempting to reach an agreement.
The Deputy President concluded that the Applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. The Deputy President was satisfied with the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondents and the Applicant's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. Consequently, the Deputy President determined that the application should be granted and issued an order for the protected action ballot. The decision was made without a hearing, and the Respondents did not object to the application.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot. The Deputy President was satisfied that the Applicant had met the requirements of the Act, including the notification time and good faith bargaining. The decision was made on the papers without a hearing, and the Respondents did not object to the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.